Evidence Admissibility in Trials

• These notes summarize chapters regarding evidence admissibility

Introduction

• Regulates the admissibility of evidence during trials, including necessary judicial direction to the jury before their verdict
• Evidence law focuses on relevance, admissibility, and weight
• Chapters may combine up to four elements like substantive, burden of proof, identification, and expert evidence chapters
• Generally, evidence is admissible if relevant, subject to exclusionary rules
• Admissibility is a legal matter, distinct from common sense or logic
• Questions regarding Burden of Proof and Judicial Warnings should refer back to whether it's capable of appealing or not
• Consideration should always be given to the accuracy of judicial direction

Burden of Proof

• Woolmington v DPP, Viscount Sankey: Establishes the presumption of innocence, where the defendant is not obligated to prove innocence
• Legal Burden (True Burden): Requires the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including AR + MR and disproving any defense the defendant raises
  • The prosecution must first establish a prima facie case; otherwise, the judge directs a non-guilty verdict
  • A high standard on the prosecution is an inherent aspect of Presumption of Innocence
• Evidential Burden (Non-true Burden): demands the defendant presents sufficient evidence to create a credible issue
• A "live issue" that can cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case and is fit for jury consideration
• The Judge has to consider is it good enough to be an issue
• "Proving" and "raising" are distinct; the latter has no standard
• Jury must be directed that the prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
• R v Kritz: If, after analyzing all evidence, jurors are not convinced of the defendant's guilt, they must acquit
• Evidential burden only requires the defendant to call evidence, exemplified by Jayasena v R, Lord Devlin, where the burden is easy to discharge, Sheldrake v DPP, Clarke LJ affirms that the evidentiary burden is the obligation to raise an issue, not prove it
• Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland, Lord Morris: The defense must "...induce reasonable doubt in the mind of [the] jury..."
• Any raised defense must be disproven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt
• Judges' phrasing must avoid misleading the jury during direction
  • Using "satisfied" may imply a lower threshold than reasonable doubt
  • Mentioning balance of probabilities for EB might be inaccurate, as demonstrated by situations when a judge mistakenly attaches SOP for EB for D and is wrong; SOP is not needed for EB and also is not accurate; Misdirection of requesting D to prove element of offence.

Exceptions: NO POI

• Reverse burden of proof shifts the true legal burden onto the defendant
• The defendant must prove their case to the civil standard/BOP, as per R v Carr-Briant
• This applies to defense of insanity and statutory reversals
• Statutory Reversals: Parliament mandates the defendant to bear the legal burden if they raise this defense
  • Note: Direction to jury by judge must be clear
• R v Majid: No formal guidelines on how a judge should direct, only clarity and understandability for the jury matter
• Questions should refer to exam, especially looking at Woolmington v DPP
• Questions concerning express and implied reversals must be identified
  • Express reversals explicitly state the defendant's burden to prove—"it is for the defendant to prove..."
  • P remains silent in regards to the defence section of who bears the LB
• Implied Reversal (Problem Question): P explicit on allocation of LB = the court decides intent of P
  • Exam: offense created along with defence, in the defence, P does not specify clearly who bears LB
  • "It is for D to prove" (Pros disprove / D prove). P remained silent as to incident of LB.
  • Always remember it is open to interpretation. may equally bear LB to / D. Saying got 2 interpretation, but for exam then better say defendant to bear.
• Court utilizes interpretations tools:
  • S101 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (summary trials) shifts the burden to the defendant if they rely on exceptions listed in the tool
  • This applies to summary trials (minor offenses) where the defense falls into categories like exceptions, exemptions, provisos, excuses, or qualifications
  • Gatland v MPC on S140 Highways Act 1959 demonstrates this principle Second tool: Lawton Formula (R v Edwards)
  • Modified version of S101 for serious and indictment offenses (R v Hunt 1987)
  • R v Edwards, S160(1) Licensing Act 1964: Silent on whom to prove whether D had license or not.
• Third tool: Rule of Convenience evaluation between ease of proof vs difficulty in discharging the burden, the one easiest will have the LB
• Applies to:
• Fourth tool: Policy Consideration (courts deciding intentions), used by Courts, determine P's intentions
• More, invoke considerations such as the mischief of the act & practical considerations of the BOP (ease of proof) -Lord Griffith: "Cannot lightly impose an onerous duty on a defendant to prove innocence." a. More serious, the Higher Punishment = LB will fair to be placed at D b. If not , the court will favour D and place EB above D Who do we look to - government= prosecution or R v Hunt (0.2%)
  • Prosecution will have better resources Express Reversal (skip interpretation tools if express) -Misuse of Drug Act 1971 where S28(2) makes it the defendant's job to prove a lack of knowledge
  • Can D frustrate the reversal (of carrying LB coming to him) -S139(4) & (5) CJA 1988 / S13 Bribery Act 2010 / S54(5) Coroners & Justice Act 2009 - Justification: such LB are there due to strong public interest to control such behaviour at the same time not so difficult for D to prove it
• Post-identification of implied/express reversals, considerations for HRA (Human Rights Act)
  • Article 6(2) ECHR identifies POI as KEY to a fair trial
  • Effective after 2000, where having LB on D might not comply with the article
  • R v Bianco 2001 determines EB is compatible with ECHR Article 6 How to handle this incompatibility (LB on D) First, to construe the enactment to a way that is in compatible with ECHR R v Lambert 2001 - S28(2): the defendant to "prove" he had no knowledge Secondly, - How persuasive is Article 6
  • discuss about Margin of Appreciation (2questions = law in pursuit of leg aim? , is proportional to achieve it)

Cardinal Principles

• lan Dennis established six principles the Judge had to do for considering (and determine the LB in D is proportionate to achieve P's Legitimate Aim) a. Ease of Proof / Peculiar Knowledge - Where the defense is more known to D - LB is proportional
  • L V DPP 2002, s139(4) amended.D must have authority to have the object b. Maximum Penalty - Judge would decide if the LB is heavy on D - high or low.
• c. Judicial Dfference = deference to government to establish a legitimate aim
• d. Classification of Offense = mala in se and mala prohibita(look at punishment)
• e. Distinction between offence and defense - -f. Presumption of Innocence = Risk of wrongful conviction

Course of Testimony—Admissibility of Sexual Behavior

• History: S2 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 subjects evidence about a complainant's sexual experience, need to get court leave
• "Speaking up for Justice” 1998 Home Office Report
• General Rule of SB - S41(1) YJCEA 1999:* SB is inadmissible for SO and the need to acquire leave
  • Always argue until it is SB = GR apply and D obtain leave
• Exception:*
• SB becomes admissible, disfavors complainant
  • S41(2) S41(3): Court give leave and not issue of concent
  • 41(5):Adduced by Prosecution (stage of EiC/ only mistake or first D use/ to show state)
  • • courts excluded the SB once are under here under the exception
    • then you also have the Safe/Redress/Vye

Confession

• Always has to do with abuse, being examined under stress (exam only comes here)

• Definition-S82(1) any statement made to police and anyone, and others) -Confession should not have be made to : -1. Person Authority -R ( cats & Dog recorded) -2.How can a suspect confess -3. To what are D - statement need and have to be made to person of authority (not confession)

• 2 way excludde (2)

  • 1. Oppression or unlikely to be done (the police act like the have to do that)

Chapter 4: Judicial Warning

• S34/S35: prevent jury bad inference.
• Lucas/defendant liar -
  • R v Luca- must have: 1: Must the police say the defendant lie -R V BURGE
  • preliminary - not central R V ANJUM:not at port, not related to offence at port (too different)
  • R v Murry: the same at with the video was different than his point
  • Jury be like to say was his is a lie

Chapter 5: Expert evidence

-GR: Opinions Are inadmissable

• Exception Expert evidence
  • 1. mental state Of confesors vs Guneine MENS rea
• scientific are all have to include Opionon -what must do when in Court? -1) not only tell jury is not in force you the tell they are just supporting factors
  • 2- not tell to say how I am the good is me to not lie

Chapter 6 : Idientfication evidence

Applies to ID situation (if D is allege is mistake)

• If W (witnes) is say : I sure is Him, good view so it is turnball
  • Full TB : the power to fully inform jury is wrong and not the -simple direction : familiar more than 1 time is there so there is limited
  1. the test for is what can can I help do
  2. there will have to be be bad/ wrong in one'ss, all is how we measure to follow

Chapter 7: The Law against Hearsay

• 2. types of rule

1. conman law generally rule because of his but this area is good so we may need to learn how to better learn to
2. CRJ 2003 this law about it will only will need to be able to be add isble
3. it this can we can to find them in high a to
4. OCS can will need most to be to hear

• 5. there the way can better work to get and be good at the better at and can be all the better able to show other